What were the major arguments of the Anti

The Antifederalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. Although less well organized than the Federalists, they also had an impressive group of leaders who were especially prominent in state politics.

Ranging from political elites like James Winthrop in Massachusetts to Melancton Smith of New York and Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia, these Antifederalist were joined by a large number of ordinary Americans particularly yeomen farmers who predominated in rural America. The one overriding social characteristic of the Antifederalists as a group was their strength in newer settled western regions of the country.

In spite of the diversity that characterized the Antifederalist opposition, they did share a core view of American politics. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power until its tyrannical rule completely dominated the people. Having just succeeded in rejecting what they saw as the tyranny of British power, such threats were seen as a very real part of political life.

To Antifederalists the proposed Constitution threatened to lead the United States down an all-too-familiar road of political corruption. All three branches of the new central government threatened Antifederalists' traditional belief in the importance of restraining government power.

The President's vast new powers, especially a veto that could overturn decisions of the people's representatives in the legislature, were especially disturbing. The court system of the national government appeared likely to encroach on local courts. Meanwhile, the proposed lower house of the legislature would have so few members that only elites were likely to be elected. Furthermore, they would represent people from such a large area that they couldn't really know their own constituents. The fifty-five members of the proposed national House of Representatives was quite a bit smaller than most state legislatures in the period. Since the new legislature was to have increased fiscal authority, especially the right to raise taxes, the Antifederalists feared that before long Congress would pass oppressive taxes that they would enforce by creating a standing national army.

This range of objections boiled down to a central opposition to the sweeping new powers of the proposed central government. George Mason, a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention who refused to support the Constitution, explained, the plan was "totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments." The rise of national power at the expense of state power was a common feature of Antifederalist opposition.

The most powerful objection raised by the Antifederalists, however, hinged on the lack of protection for individual liberties in the Constitution. Most of the state constitutions of the era had built on the Virginia model that included an explicit protection of individual rights that could not be intruded upon by the state. This was seen as a central safeguard of people's rights and was considered a major Revolutionary improvement over the unwritten protections of the British constitution.

Why, then, had the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention not included a bill of rights in their proposed Constitution? Most Antifederalists thought that such protections were not granted because the Federalists represented a sinister movement to roll back the gains made for ordinary people during the Revolution.

The Antifederalists and Federalists agreed on one thing: the future of the nation was at stake in the contest over the Constitution.

The Constitution is one of the most influential documents in American history. It outlines the government under which we live and details the rights each of us has. Despite its importance today, however, the Constitution was almost not implemented at all. In fact, when it was sent to the states after being drafted during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, many initially refused to ratify it. 

Explanation

Thus began a contentious debate between those who supported the new Constitution and believed it was an improvement over the previous governing document, the Articles of Confederation, and those who opposed it and worried about the heightened powers it gave to the federal government. 

Anti-Federalist vs Federalist 

Federalists supported the ratification of the new Constitution and believed a more robust national government with greater powers was necessary to unite the individual states and create a stronger country. Anti-Federalists opposed ratification and believed power should be concentrated with the states rather than with the federal government. They worried that a stronger federal government would be prone to tyranny and that the new Constitution did not include adequate protections for the rights of individuals and states. 

The History

There were many prominent politicians on both sides of the debate. The Federalists claimed Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison as their own. Meanwhile, the Anti-Federalists included John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Mercy Otis Warren. 

The main disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was over how much power the federal government should have. Federalists believed the economic problems and internal unrest America faced in the late 1780s were due in part to the weakness and ineffectiveness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation. They pointed to Congress’s inability to fund any projects as one example of this ineffectiveness: under the Articles, Congress could not levy taxes, forcing it to ask the states for any money it needed. States, however, were not required to provide any help. Although Congress asked for millions in the 1780s, it received less than 1.5 million from the states between 1781 and 1784. 

The Constitution gave the federal government much more power, including the ability to levy taxes. Federalists believed that a stronger national government would improve relationships between states and help create, as the Constitution stated, a “more perfect union.” Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, worried that a federal government with more power would be prone to tyranny.

Anti-Federalists were especially concerned that the Constitution would not adequately protect the rights of both states and individuals. They pushed for the addition of a bill of rights, which would guarantee several rights and freedoms. Federalists argued that this was not necessary; Alexander Hamilton even devoted Federalist 84 of the Federalist Papers to an explanation of why the Constitution already protected civil rights, making a bill of rights unnecessary. 

In the end, though, Federalists compromised on this point. Anti-Federalist sentiment was so strong in some states that the addition of a bill of rights was a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. In fact, James Madison, a prominent Federalist, ended up being the one to draft the Bill of Rights during Congress’s first session. 

Throughout the debate, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists attempted to disseminate their views to the general public. Three notable Federalists, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, joined together to write the Federalist Papers, a series of 85 essays supporting the ratification of the Constitution. Many Anti-Federalists wrote essays explaining their opposition to ratification as well. Though the Anti-Federalist authors did not work together or necessarily share a unified vision, these essays are collectively known as the Anti-Federalist Papers. Some of the most well-known Anti-Federalist Papers are a series of 16 essays published in the New York Journal from October 1787 through April 1788 under the pseudonym Brutus, who most now believe was politician, judge, and noted Anti-Federalist Robert Yates. 

So What?

Though the Anti-Federalists were not able to prevent ratification, the effects of their efforts are still felt today, most notably in the existence of the Bill of Rights. These ten amendments to the Constitution guarantee many of the rights and freedoms we now consider hallmarks of the American democracy. For instance, the Bill of Rights guarantees our right to freedom of expression, speech, religion, and assembly, and protects those accused of crimes. It also protects the power of the state through Amendment 10, which affirms that the states or the people hold any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government. It was the contentious debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists that led to the existence of these protections. 

Additionally, the sentiments of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists can still be felt today. Though the parties themselves no longer exist in their original forms, the central debate between them - the question of how much power the federal government should have as compared to the states - is still a relevant issue in the modern political landscape. For example, the Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s right to legalize same-sex marriage nationally despite state bans on it in Obergefell v Hodges (2015). There is also currently controversy over whether state or federal governments should have the most influence in deciding gun regulations. Though the members of the Constitutional Convention settled their differences, the debate over states versus federal rights is likely to continue for many years to come. 

What was a major argument of the anti federalist?

What were the major arguments of the Anti

What were the two main arguments of the Anti

What were the 3 main arguments of the Federalists for the Constitution?